US forces bomb another hospital

Someone impartial.

And again, I notice a distinct lack of anyone being able to defend the US actions based on the actual text.

Because we weren't there or don't trust the accuracy of the sources - at this point in time anyway.

Well, that's because the actions are indefensible. I mean, the net result of the actions lead to the deaths of a score of volunteer doctors and patients, so obviously the actions were wrong. I mean, if you run someone over with a car you'll go to prison even if you didn't mean to do it, unless someone literally throws himself in the way. It would be much better if everyone just recognized that and then the discussion might become more fruitful.

No need to name names but it's obvious there are some people posting in the thread taking the stance that it's basically okay for US soldiers to murder anyone, anywhere at any time. I believe they call it "exceptionalism."

The text of the Geneva Convention does not depend on "sources".

Such as?

Now honestly. Who hasn't sat in a hospital waiting room flipping through The Ladies Home Journal or Field and Stream thinking, "I'm going to slit my wrists out of boredom and see if any nurses notice. I wish we had an airstrike or something."

So we must believe it was intentional (versus an accident) because somebody said so? It may have been intentional or perhaps it was incompetence - but let's not jump the gun here (no pun intended).
Sorry - I wasn't there or involved in this incident so it's wrong to assume anything and have it considered gospel.

Iraq 2003 (Mortaritaville) I was in such a state of boredom, wishing for yet another mortar attack because the movie playing in our hooch was.....Caddie Shack II. I'm no angel, but no human being deserves that kind of treatment.

Which is why I bring my own magazines to doctors offices and ERs. Actually one of the guides my wife had for what to expect during the delivery of your baby was that the new father should bring some magazines and books to keep his mind occupied.

Over there it's probably worse. You go check the rack and all they have is the Koran in Arabic, or the Koran in Urdu, or a Koran in Pashtun. How to choose?

Oh trust me, it's even worse than you can imagine:

I'm not assuming. I think that based on the evidence at hand the US appear to be in violation of the convention and that an impartial investigation is needed.

Associated Press Link

NBC Link

Summary: Cockpit recordings reveal that the crew of the AC-130 flying gunship sent to bombard the facility were aware of the target and questioned the legality of the attack.

Not much about any of this in the mainstream media, predictably.

But what's the problem with taking out the patients and staff when they're all grouped together instead of trying to take them out individually with drone strikes when they're at their homes or apartments? They're collateral damage either way.

I'll bet it would be mainstream news if Bush were still Commander In Chief - just sayin'

When you say that right after posting links from the Associated Press and NBC News, both of which are as mainstream and establishment as American media gets, it kind of undercuts the statement...

You aren't "just saying". You're attempting to reduce US war crimes to petty partisanship.

There were many more such incidents when Bush was in charge.

Citation needed.

http://tribune.com.pk/story/975516/...l-bombed-by-us-forces-claims-afghan-minister/

Afghan Defense Minister says the Taliban were indeed inside the hospital.

Huh? Funny when the hospital staff was interviewed shortly after the bombing they didn't mention tripping over Taliban AK-47's when they were trying to change out bed-pans. I for one am SHOCKED that the Taliban (or any Muslim extremists) would not give a shit about innocent lives.

My outrage is directed at the Taliban for routinely attempting to use protected places for military purposes.

Tragic - by that rationale all the Taliban has to do is set up shop strictly in civilian centers and they are bullet-proof forever - no army would dare attack for fear of collateral damage. They should run all their defensive operations and plan offensive operations from schools, hospitals, daycares, shopping areas, etc. Hell they could even force innocent civilians to travel with them when they are on the run out in the desert, so we can't attack them lest we might kill someone.

So....were they only treating the Taliban or allowing the Taiban to use that hospital for military operations? I'll reread the report.

Wel I found this:
"According to a former intelligence official, the special operations analyst had assembled a document containing maps with the hospital circled, along with indications that intelligence agencies were tracking the location of the Pakistani operative and activity reports based on overhead surveillance. The intelligence suggested the hospital was being used as a Taliban command and control center and may have housed heavy weapons.
Further, the former intelligence official said that some US analysts considered the strike to be justified as the Pakistani operative had been killed in the attack. The analysts believe he was working for the Inter-Service Intelligence directorate."

So it looks like The Taliban were using the hospital as a command post.
I'm thinking the hospital staff tolerated/looked the other way about the military stuff while they treated patients. Do you really think they had a choice? What I find weird is the hospital wouldn't allow the US military in until they laid down their arms. No doubt they said the same thing to the Taliban.

Wasn't it an AC-130 that attacked the hospital? If that is the case the hospital was "shelled" not "bombed".

Besides which the slow flying AC-130s are used in large part because their precision fire can avoid collateral damage even better than precision guided weapons.

So the use of the AC-130 alone shows American efforts to avoid killing innocent civilians.

Maybe that's where their intel said the Taliban were doing military shit. Just coming at it from the miltary mindset, I could be wrong.